Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2155 <br />August 15, 1996 <br />Page 2 <br />Mav 13th Citv Council Review <br />On Mav 13th the Citv Council considered three issues: <br />1. Should the driveway be allowed to remain in its current location? <br />2.Should the City help solve the driveway problem by allowing the acquisition of <br />City property? <br />3.Is the negative impact on applicants' property caused by relocating the driveway <br />substantial enough to merit the City assisting in resolving the driveway nott- <br />conformity? <br />Council considered the hardship statements by the applicants and the possible concerns about <br />setting a precedent of selling City land for private purposes. Council concluded that in this <br />case it would be appropriate to allow applicants to acquire a portion of the City parcel to bring <br />their existing driveway into conformance, subject to four specific conditions: <br />1.The portion of the parcel to be reconveyed should be minimized (it has been <br />reduced from 25' x 100' to 20' x 100'). <br />2.The width of the driveway, particularly at its two ends, be reduced as much as <br />possible (applicants will be relocating the driveway slightly further west to <br />eliminate any encroachment outside of the adjusted lot boundary). <br />3.Applicants will bear the cost of any survey and legal work required related to <br />a division of the City parcel and a lot line rearrangement. <br />4.Applicant will follow through with a lot line rearrangement process to add the <br />parcel lo his existing parcel. <br />Council voted 5 to 0 to allow the acquisition under these conditions (please review the May <br />8th memo and the May 13 th Council minutes). <br />Discussion <br />The process for transfer of this 20' x 100' parcel to the applicants includes the City reconveying <br />this portion of the lax forfeit parcel t*"* the County, then the County puts it up for sale to an <br />adjacent property ownei, of which the applicant is the only one.